Erwin Puts on Leica S lenses

[rosuna]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really interesting:

 

S2, part2

 

.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dfarkas]

Really interesting:

 

S2, part2

 

.

 

Nice analysis, although I disagree that you have to shoot at 1/1000th of a sec to get a sharp picture with the S2. On the 70mm, I've found 1/125th or 1/180th to work very well. With the 35mm, I can get reliably sharp results at 1/60th. So, I'd say that double the reciprocal of the focal length is the rule to follow.

 

Overall, Puts talks about what he knows best: optics and measuring optics.

 

David

[c6gowin]

I agree with you on this one David. I get a high percentage of sharp results at 1/125th second on the S2 and 70mm. By 1/250th second, sharp results are almost guaranteed barring fast moving subjects.We're talking hand-held shutter speeds, not tripod shutter speeds.

[rosuna]

The S system is an optic driven system, just like the former Olympus' 4/3 was. It is designed for the best optical performance on a pure digital system (very wide mount, large lens-to-flange distance, large barrels, back telecentricity etc.).

 

I don't know if that criterion is correct from an economic point of view, considering the possibilities of digital processing (in camera and out of camera).

 

Anyway, Puts is very clear: regarding optics this is the best system out there. Floating elements, ASPH elements, large barrels... all the big guns!

 

Hasselblad H lenses are very good, but the H system was born as a hybrid (film/digital) system. Schneider lenses for Mamiya should be top class too, but the integration of different components bring many (tolerance) problems affecting image quality.

 

The real problem of the S system is the price of the body. Hasselblad and Phase One are aggressive in terms of prices for cameras of similar specifications. And then comes Pentax... They have announced distribution in Spain of the 645D from this summer...

[georg]

Although he ignored the Schneider/Rodenstock lenses for digital systems which offer advanced designs and remarkable quality with similar MTFs.

 

I think it's a shame that even the top-end >>20k$-SLR-systems still incorporate designs that were introduced by Zeiss decades ago with similar technology and quality (e.g. the 6 element standard lenses with weak open-aperture performance). Just like Hasselblad used it's major system-change to find cheaper suppliers instead of offering advantages for customers. I think it was time that someone offered real optical innovation in this market.

[rosuna]

The part 3 is here:

 

S2, part3

[eronald]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Big sensors/film always outclass small ones, Puts says. The S2 optics are superb, but a Mamiya or Hasselblad with a real 645 sensor will eat the S2 for breakfast, and a 36x48 current gen sensor will at least match it.

 

Edmund

[rosuna]

36x48mm sensors on 645 systems are uncomfortable, due to the crop factor. The whole system is unnecessarily large and costly.

[jaapv]

Big sensors/film always outclass small ones, Puts says. The S2 optics are superb, but a Mamiya or Hasselblad with a real 645 sensor will eat the S2 for breakfast, and a 36x48 current gen sensor will at least match it.

 

Edmund

Did we read the same article? Where does he say that?

[glenerrolrd]

While Puts tests are difficult to follow in English , IMHO they always try to take a fair and balanced view of camera/lens performance. The argument he seems to be making is that the S2 provides a fantastic combination of MF IQ with pro DSLR size and handling.

 

He also goes on to say that at 40MP the differences between the S2 and say a P65+ may not be all that relevant (for many types of photography).(they are most definitely relevant to some photographers but just not most photographers). The differences between the S2 and the HB and Phase 40MP offerings IQ are even smaller. They are all so good that IQ differences should not be a major consideration .

 

He does go on to say that the differences between the S2 and say the D3x or the M9 are material and a step function better...so the S2 at a size and weight similar to the D3x can offer MF IQ .....larger DR ,better Color Saturation and of course substantially more detail.

 

Like any comparison shopping it depends a great deal on what you are looking for when evaluating a new camera system. Is the S2 IQ better than a HB or Phase solution ..IMHO not yet ....but it is very competitive . Would I switch for better IQ..no. Would I trade up from a D3X ..absolutely. What problem are we trying to solve?

 

Oh thats right its a professional grade camera system with fast superb quality Leica lenses delivering MF IQ in a pro size DSLR weather sealed body. But lets be honest this is the leica forum .....I picked up the S2 , looked through the viewfinder. Fired off a few shots . This is the one . (full disclosure I ve been using Leica R SLR cameras since the SL had an external meter so I am really biased toward the S2 form). Some considerations don t translate so well to eye charts.

[Likaleica]

Yes, but in the case of the Leica S2, the IQ is inherent in the lenses, rather than using software to salvage - or rather create - sharp images from inferior lenses.

 

NB: I am speaking from theory and MTF curves, because I have not had the opportunity to study them first hand.

[eronald]

Did we read the same article? Where does he say that?

 

Well, text below is how part 2 starts out.

S2, part2

 

The way I interpret this is that Puts indicates that usually MF cameras have been justified in relying on mediocre lenses because of format advantage. The S2 has both superb lenses and format advantage and can thus trash a good 35 mm system.

 

However the same argument can then be used against the S2: If we again factor in that the Hassy and Mamiya lenses are not total junk even if they are only made by Schneider or Fuji, then a full 645 digital is given a big format advantage compared to the S2, and will draw or win without difficulty.

 

Edmund

 

A very famous comparison by Geoffrey Crawley of BJP fame confronted a modest and cheap medium format twin lens reflex of Chinese origin with a high grade 35mm SLR of Japanese origin. His conclusion was that the larger size of the negative fully compensated the much higher lens performance of the 35mm camera. All medium format and large format camera makers relied on this rule: the larger the negative the lower the lens quality can be. The logic is evident: a large negative requires less magnification and lens aberrations are therefore less magnified too. If a 35mm negative requires good quality at the 40 lp/mm level, a large format negative needs at most good quality at 10 lp/mm for a bigger sized print.

This rule holds even today in most medium format digital backs and cameras.

[jaapv]

Well, yes, now I see what you mean. But that is rather a spurious argument, a turning around of the original arguments against the 135 format, which have been proven false by history.

[eronald]

Well, yes, now I see what you mean. But that is rather a spurious argument, a turning around of the original arguments against the 135 format, which have been proven false by history.

 

Spurious? if the S2 is supposedly better than 135 because good lenses on larger format are better than good lenses on 135, then good lenses on 645 should be better than good lenses on S2. And in the same way, good lenses on 8x10 should be better than good lenses on 645

 

Let's get this right: Leica made its reputation with a portable small format interchangeable lens camera, at a time when people like Ansel Adams were shooting 8x10 or stuck with one lens on a Rolleiflex. Now they are providing a decent alternative to the 645 monsters. But at no time have people "proven" that 8x10 film or Rolleiflex/Planar was worse than Leica 135, and only someone who hasn't got access to a digital back will laugh off the Phase and Hassy.

 

I have a Phamiya, and a Nikon D3x; in practice the Nikon or a lighter Canon go everywhere because of ergonomics. I can imagine that quite a few digital back owners will adopt the S2 as a big dSLR. But none of the pro shooters is going to accept arguments that the Leica will really do better image quality than a 645 digital. Oh and yes Leica has an added handicap when it relies on Adobe software.

 

Edmund

[rosuna]

The 645 format (without crops) is not a direct competitor of the S2. The natural competitors of the Leica "pro" format is the 35mm. The price tag of the S2 body is a mistake, in the long term (it may be rational in the short term, until the system is completed and the rich-amateurs niche is depleted and the initial inversion recovered). I am sure Leica will change the price scheme of the S system. They have to.

 

The 645 system, on the other hand, is larger, the bodies are heavier, it is far more expensive (in terms of costs), etc. I think it will be a format for special applications, just like the 6x6 (if we ever see such a sensor). In the past, in the film days, 645 and 6x6 were more versatile formats, but now the relative relations between formats have changed, because the resolving power, cost and recovering schemes have changed too. Now the 35mm format bring images far larger than needed for most applications, and certainly for almost all "professional" applications. The typical photographic output isn't on paper anymore. Larger formats bring more resolution for large prints (important for "artist" photographers) and a different aesthetic. The 645 and 6x6 formats will be marginal, at best. The S2 makes sense, if the price is right, as a competitor of the 35mm systems: it brings more detail (some people would appreciate this) and an (enough) different aesthetic.

 

I would not be too worried by 645 systems or 6x6 systems. On the other hand, 645 systems with cropped sensors are uncomfortable, to some extent. The only real menace comes from Leica itself. They have to establish a right pricing and a (somewhat) larger scale of production, more in line than Pentax's offering (for instance).

[eronald]

It is not 645 or 135 competing with the S2, these two formats have been here for some time - it's the S2 trying to get some attention from 135 or 645 shooters. Whether Leica intends to sell the equivalent of a stylish for show Ferrari or whether it will turn into an upscale reliable and capable Mercedes Benz is something which only time will show us.

 

Edmund

 

The 645 format (without crops) is not a direct competitor of the S2. The natural competitors of the Leica "pro" format is the 35mm. The price tag of the S2 body is a mistake, in the long term (it may be rational in the short term, until the system is completed and the rich-amateurs niche is depleted and the initial inversion recovered). I am sure Leica will change the price scheme of the S system. They have to.

 

The 645 system, on the other hand, is larger, the bodies are heavier, it is far more expensive (in terms of costs), etc. I think it will be a format for special applications, just like the 6x6 (if we ever see such a sensor). In the past, in the film days, 645 and 6x6 were more versatile formats, but now the relative relations between formats have changed, because the resolving power, cost and recovering schemes have changed too. Now the 35mm format bring images far larger than needed for most applications, and certainly for almost all "professional" applications. The typical photographic output isn't on paper anymore. Larger formats bring more resolution for large prints (important for "artist" photographers) and a different aesthetic. The 645 and 6x6 formats will be marginal, at best. The S2 makes sense, if the price is right, as a competitor of the 35mm systems: it brings more detail (some people would appreciate this) and an (enough) different aesthetic.

 

I would not be too worried by 645 systems or 6x6 systems. On the other hand, 645 systems with cropped sensors are uncomfortable, to some extent. The only real menace comes from Leica itself. They have to establish a right pricing and a (somewhat) larger scale of production, more in line than Pentax's offering (for instance).

[rosuna]

I am afraid a stylish for show Ferrari cannot survive in the market for too long. It is a good idea for the first 1 or 2 years of production. Leica has a first flight in its demand function which is very inelastic to price. Rich amateurs around the world. They are many considering the small production scale of this camera. It makes sense to exploit this niche and set a high starting price. The system and the distribution and support channel needs time to be completed anyway.

 

After the first 1000-1500 units are sold, then, what? Then they will have to reorient the system. I am sure Leica has a large margin for readjusting prices.

 

The fourth part of Puts' analysis:

 

S2, part4

[mjh]

The way I interpret this is that Puts indicates that usually MF cameras have been justified in relying on mediocre lenses because of format advantage. The S2 has both superb lenses and format advantage and can thus trash a good 35 mm system.

 

However the same argument can then be used against the S2: If we again factor in that the Hassy and Mamiya lenses are not total junk even if they are only made by Schneider or Fuji, then a full 645 digital is given a big format advantage compared to the S2, and will draw or win without difficulty.

The flaw in this reasoning is that it assumes an intrinsically lower resolution requirement of a bigger sensor. The resolution requirements of a bigger sensor may indeed be lower in certain comparisons, like if you compare a 14 MP compact digicam to a 14 MP APS-C DSLR. But in the case at hand it isn’t so.

 

The resolution required from the lens depends on the pixel size. A sensor with a pixel pitch of x µm could resolve a spatial frequency of 500 / x Lp/mm at best. Now if you look at the pixel pitch of top-of-the-line 35 mm or MF DSLRs, it will always be close to 6 µm. It is exactly 6.0 µm for the S2, Hasselblad H4D, and Pentax 645D, 6.4 µm for the EOS-1Ds Mark III, and 5.9 µm for the Nikon D3X. So currently it is the EOS-1Ds Mark III placing the least strict requirements on its lenses, but of course the differences are small.

 

Given that the pixel pitch is about the same across the board, the crucial difference lies in the number of pixels. The higher the number of pixels required the bigger the sensor needs to be to provide room for these pixels. A bigger sensor implies a larger image circle, so that’s where the lenses need to prove they are worth their price: do they provide the required resolution not just within the 21 mm radius of the 35 mm image circle, but also within the larger image circle of an S2 or even H4D-50 or H4D-60?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[markowich]

 

The fourth part of Puts' analysis:

 

S2, part4

 

very odd, some frames are completely out of focus. interesting though that he does not show the M9 at 1250 iso since he does not consider it a contender (i do agree). the S2 at 1250 iso is very bad, speckled noise (see the model's hair) which is hard to eliminate.

after all it becomes very clear that the D3x is a milestone camera.

peter

[eronald]

Let me quote Puts again on definition (Part 4)

 

The highest definition and the cleanest image is being provided by the S2, followed by D3X and A900 and the M9.

What we see here is the classical rule that negative size matters. The annex to this rule is that size differences follow the law of diminishing returns.

 

And let me state the corollary again: a full 645 with decent lenses will naturally take its place *above* the S2.

 

Edmund